Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using Pharmacy Claims Data to Study Adherence to Glaucoma Medications: Methodology and Findings of the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study (GAPS)

Open access
Friedman, David S., Quigley, Harry A., Gelb, Laurie, Tan, Jason, Margolis, Jay, Shah, Sonali N., Kim, Elizabeth E., Zimmerman, Thom, Hahn, Steven R.·2007·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop methods for investigating adherence to glaucoma medications by using a modified claims data-based measure of adherence, validation by chart review, and patient and physician interviews. METHODS: Data from administrative claims of 13,956 subjects receiving an initial glaucoma medication, and data from overlapping samples of 300 patients' charts, 300 interviews of patients, and 103 interviews of physicians were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The mean medication possession ratio (MPR) was 0.64 (median 0.57) for the 13,956 subjects. Although 59% potentially had an ocular hypotensive agent at 12 months, only 10% had such medication available continuously. Chart review revealed that 31% of subjects "new to therapy" in claims data had actually been previously treated; and that 90% of the 17% who had medication added to initial monotherapy were misclassified by claims-based algorithms as medication switches or no change. Twenty percent of surveyed patients received samples on a regular basis and had lower MPR than those who did not (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Large pharmacy databases offer insight into medication usage but are vulnerable to errors from sampling (since patients who receive samples will be considered to have poor adherence), misidentification of newly treated patients, and misclassification of added versus switched medications. That a large proportion of patients stop and restart medications makes MPR a robust measure of adherence over time that reflects the resumption of medication after a gap in adherence. The data confirm that adherence to treatment with glaucoma medications is poor, similar to adherence in patients with other chronic diseases.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/iovs.07-0290

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
Friedman, D. S., Quigley, H. A., Gelb, L., Tan, J., Margolis, J., Shah, S. N., Kim, E. E., Zimmerman, T., & Hahn, S. R.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2007-11-01
Volume
48
Issue
11
Pages
5052
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W2068598411
Cited by
281
References
3
FWCI
11.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.